Indeed, the only good thing about McCain is that he gave us a genuine conservative, Sarah Palin. He's like one of those insects that lives just long enough to reproduce so that the species can survive. That's why a lot of us are referring to Sarah as "The One" these days.

Like Sarah Connor in "The Terminator," Sarah Palin is destined to give breath to a new movement. That's why the Democrats are trying to kill her. And Arnold Schwarzenegger is involved somehow, too. Good Lord, I'm tired.

One can never second guess the aggressive stupidity of the Americans---and I am not singling out Tomas here and certainly don't want to put him on the spot---but I personally doubt that Palin has a future in national politics, and if she is given that role it will end up as a terrible deficit for the Republicans. If Palin is all they could pull out of their hat, it indicates political bankruptcy. The popular appeal she has is to a lower common denominator, and so let them rally round her. She will never, ever get off the ground. It is hubris that she supposes she might.

You can't start out framed as a complete idiot and ever hope to shake it.

With Obama, I think, we see the rise of a new political technocrat class in American politics. At the very least it is going to have a more intelligent veneer, more intelligent packaging.

It seems presumptuous to think the Palin ["twisted Anima"] veneer and packaging would be less deliberately chosen than the Obama veneer and packaging, or to think there's fundamentally more to it. Palin was chosen to get the McCain campaign out of its rut, and it did exactly that until the meltdown of the banking system entered the news. Obama was chosen to be able to sell extremely unpopular ideas in a time where more than half of the Americans and 90% of the global population had become rather sick of US policies. One could say a candidate with some street credit was called for by the 'establishment'.

Only in that regard Obama is the superior candidate and some extra credit has been gained which now quickly can be spent the coming half year or so. Obama is like a short-term bail-out of American politics. The question remains here too: who's gonna pay when everything has been said and done?

The first signs of the Obama core machinery are getting visible as we speak, his backers, his network, his real promoters the last decade.... they all pop up out of the woodwork and it doesn't look nice, or like a change at all! Le plus ça change ... le plus c'est la même chose.

The choice of Palin, it seems, was a calculated gamble in the face of very bad odds; bad odds recognized as bad odds. It was all a last-ditch effort, and as a gamble it simply did not pay off. Palin lost 90% of her credibility, from my perspective, when she couldn't even answer some extremely basic questions. She may have credibility but it is with some people---a movement---that is in a descending arc.

"Obama was chosen to be able to sell extremely unpopular ideas in a time where more than half of the Americans and 90% of the global population had become rather sick of US policies. One could say a candidate with some street credit was called for by the 'establishment'."

What you are leaving out of the equation, though even your core premise could be questioned, is that Obama was elected through an unprecedented effort of activism that, as far as I know, has to parallel in American history. That machine of activism will not, I don't think, just fall back into the woodwork, inert. Many millions of people who have certain political ideals got involved with the democratic party and they describe their activism (one described it this way to me) as 'these are my Sixties, I wasn't around then, but I am active now because of my political and social values'. I don't think you can ascribe that, and I don't think you can ascribe a significant part of Obama's own political vision, as a machination of leading PR machines.

Without the activist component, one presidential election could have no effect, obviously. The big question mark is if all those people who got active to elect Obama will remain active.

Alex Jacob wrote:Palin lost 90% of her credibility, from my perspective, when she couldn't even answer some extremely basic questions. She may have credibility but it is with some people---a movement---that is in a descending arc.

The fact that 46% still voted for a combo with her shows it doesn't matter that much how her credibility declined in the eyes of many millions. The election in 2004 should already have informed anyone that such odds were not bad at all. Your remark shows a little disconnect with the game being played during elections, the game with lipstick and pigs, after all.

What you are leaving out of the equation, though even your core premise could be questioned, is that Obama was elected through an unprecedented effort of activism that, as far as I know, has to parallel in American history. (...) That machine of activism will not, I don't think, just fall back into the woodwork, inert. Many millions of people who have certain political ideals got involved with the democratic party ...

I'm worried about their reaction when high expectations will not be met. Where will all that energy go? What will it turn into? A radical disinterest or a radical anger? The Obama campaign also took a risk with perhaps rather bad odds on the long run.

and I don't think you can ascribe a significant part of Obama's own political vision, as a machination of leading PR machines.

His own "political vision" seems more like a product of decades of the same machinery. His books or his books of 'inspirators' like Reinhold Niebuhr do not give me any sense of solid philosophical outlook. He seems to be extraordinary crafty to say the 'right things' considering his audience and political goals, digging into accepted worn-out traditions and an understanding of what the crows desires. A bit like you perhaps :)

Without the activist component, one presidential election could have no effect, obviously. The big question mark is if all those people who got active to elect Obama will remain active.

Obama just opened up a website for that purpose. Imagine those millions logging on and filing their ideas. Great vision ;-) All E-candy.

"I'm worried about their reaction when high expectations will not be met. Where will all that energy go? What will it turn into? A radical disinterest or a radical anger? The Obama campaign also took a risk with perhaps rather bad odds on the long run."

You're worried, are you? ;-)

I don't have any idea either how it will all turn out, but what I can tell you is that unlike any other time in recent history many millions of people have made some level of decision to involve themselves in the political process. For us, my friend, it represents a big step forward.

If it turns out that Obama et al betray the people who elected them, or if they feel it was all a sham, there will certainly be a reaction, and it won't be pretty. But again, the only alternative is political activism.

"Obama just opened up a website for that purpose. Imagine those millions logging on and filing their ideas. Great vision. All E-candy"

Sure, but also imagine those millions and millions of new democrats who made a commitment to donate time and energy at a community level. I hope that that activism is not diminished, and I don't think they will give up.

Alex Jacob wrote:"I'm worried about their reaction when high expectations will not be met. Where will all that energy go? What will it turn into? A radical disinterest or a radical anger? The Obama campaign also took a risk with perhaps rather bad odds on the long run."

You're worried, are you? ;-)

Of course not, don't be silly!

I don't have any idea either how it will all turn out, but what I can tell you is that unlike any other time in recent history many millions of people have made some level of decision to involve themselves in the political process. For us, my friend, it represents a big step forward.

What kind of involvement? Cheering for a candidate? Aren't we talking about people with Facebook account changing their profile picture into Obama's? Twitter? Web 2.0?

Did you see anything apart from the new media and big rallies? Tell me quick!

Sure, but also imagine those millions and millions of new democrats who made a commitment to donate time and energy at a community level. I hope that that activism is not diminished, and I don't think they will give up.

If so many millions are committing time and energy at a community level, then Obama doesn't need to introduce a law anymore to force people to contribute a few months of their life. But he's still planning for that, forced labor camps aka Classroom Corps, Health Corps, Clean Energy Corp.

Not that I'm really against it, looking around me, but where's the belief in the people, the faith in the power that we can change. Out of free will of course...

As for the 'surge' in political campaign activism, it coincides rather nicely with the surge in campaign financing to half a billion dollars. Half a billion, just for a media campaign. No wonder the masses got 'touched' by the 'perception management' of agencies who normally make us buy almost anything.

As you can see, I'm rather skeptical about this change. What I'm looking at is smart product placement, believing in one owns hype and a desperate rehash of old decayed politics, all embedded in the sizzling void that's modern media. I do not believe it has much future.